CLASSIC INTERVIEW: My interview with Mr Goh Meng Seng (SG, National Solidarity Party), 15/10/2010

My interview with Mr Goh Meng Seng (Secretary-General, National Solidarity Party), 15 October 2010

(Please note: The 2011 General Election was held on 7 May 2011.)

By Dr Kieran James (University of Fiji)

Introduction: This previously unpublished interview is probably the longest one GMS did during his time as SG of NSP. What is remarkable is that the same topics are still so relevant today - PAP pork-barrelling, Malay issues, foreign talent, minimum wage, internet activism, and the race-card. The interview is also interesting because it gives us what the Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Žižek termed an "Alternative history". This reminds us that the current world is always just one of many and is based on decisions taken in the past. This interview gives insight into how NSP might have progressed had GMS stayed on as SG. Given that the party has done little of note since he left and is starved of vision and identity once more, GMS's worthwhile ideas (such as the Malay Bureau) perhaps should have been given the chance to prove themselves over a longer time-horizon...[by Kieran James, 10 January 2014].

Kieran James: Explain the events in your life that caused you to become an opposition supporter.

Goh Meng Seng: My father is a political party member so from young we read Chinese newspapers together, he is not educated but he can read. The socialist perspective of his generation was mentioned. In uni days, 1991, the main battle involved SDP; there was a lot of discussion on electronic bulletin board and on campus discussion about how great SDP rallies were. Newspapers did not give full picture about what was going on on the ground. I attended my first rally, 1991 election SDP Potong Pasir, and then I realized the media was being totally unfair in its reporting. I did small reports on rallies; I was involved in citizen reporting, NUS electronic bulletin boards; these were my first political activism. There was this bulletin news group that evolved into Social Culture Singapore; you can still find it on Google.

KJ: Just out of interest, what did you study at university?

GMS: I had been studying economics. At NUS when you study economics in honours year you will do a lot of analysis on local politics, for example for foreign talent policy; we were already discussing it back then. I was critical of many policies of the Goh Chok Tong era such as GST, COE, and asset enhancement programme. I totally disagreed as a young man. So my study educated me from a policy perspective. In 1997 the GCT administration started pork-barrelling politics. I continued my political reporting with some anonymous people who said they were interested. In 1997 I voted for Tang Liang Hong; I voted in Cheng San GRC. 1997 was the full awakening when they started the HDB upgrading pork-barrelling. I wrote a very emotional piece after the election saying there are only two options left for me: First migrate and second, stay and fight all for the betterment of my children. I do not want my children to get cultivated in such a system. Everything is materialism, everything has a price. I have been volunteering all my life. It relates to the issue of ministers’ pay. I was helping out in a Buddhist welfare group. It is an insult to all the volunteers to say no-one will serve at low pay. My wife moved on to Hong Kong, she’s working there and my daughter was born there.

KJ: When did you first join a political party?

GMS: I decided to join Workers’ Party right at the middle of the election [2001]. I thought if such a trend goes on, the opposition will be history. WP only fielded two candidates [KJ note: Mr Low in Hougang SMC and Poh Lee Guan in Nee Soon East SMC], SDA was pretty weak, and SDP was being whacked. So through a mutual friend I was introduced to LTK [Low Thia Khiang]. After an hour’s talk, I joined WP and never looked back. I stood in 06 in Aljunied. I was given the task to be the Mandarin anchor in 06. Most of the speeches were in Mandarin except one defending James Gomez. We had a fight in Aljunied GRC, James became the lightning rod. People called him liar, cheater, and a scheming fellow but I know the whole story. It was a mistake he made; he did not plan for it. I rebutted George Yeo; I said I will not drop James Gomez. We were quite a strong performer; four out of five of us were new candidates.

KJ: What was your opinion about the result?

GMS: Our result was quite respectable; we gained one NCMP in Sylvia. There was a change in policy regarding media engagement. WP was not ready for the influx of new members after the election. I did my political work and recruitment [via] internet since 91. If you say you can have no blunders on new media it will not allow people to grow; new media is quite instantaneous and interactive. The party was not very responsive. It’s understandable because we put so much effort in rebranding the whole party. “We need to be careful of slurs to party branding if people did things wrong on the net” [they said].

I disagreed. I asked the audience “can I have a show of hands whether you got to know the party through the internet?” 75-80% put up their hands, I had made my point, this was at an ordinary members’ conference. They [WP leadership] said they did not want EC members to expose identity on net. I took the opportunity to resign. Official reason is I took responsibility for bad press, the slur on the party brand. I felt if I was to stay in the party it would be too restrictive for my personal grooming. For those inside it will do them no good in the long run. It’s just like a child. Even if you don’t want him to fall, you can’t possibly prevent him from walking. I felt that aspiring politicians will not have a good training ground if they stay in the party. I had to decide whether to start a new party or join an existing one.

In 07 the NSP President Sebastian Teo asked me to join the party; he’s more open in media engagement. He showed me the vision; he wanted to revamp the party, to become key player in the opposition field. He asked me to join. I thought “why not, NSP already has an infrastructure; I should see how I could contribute to building”. I had a cultural shock when I went there.

KJ: I’m interested. How was it a culture shock?

GMS: In WP we have a team to sell papers. At NSP each has a stack of papers and we give money to the party later on. There are pros and cons. NSP is very small by comparison. The sales of the paper were very bad compared to WP. WP on one Sunday sells 700-1,500 papers; NSP 200-300 – there was a gap.

KJ: What is your comment about working with Low Thia Khiang?

GMS: I think Low is a very good mentor. He cautions us about such circumstances; you must be cool and calm in your analysis; you must avoid being flattered. It’s too bad I can’t agree with the media policy so we have to part.

I had to compromise and adapt to the new environment [at NSP]. Although NSP has existed since 1987 there are no core values. My job after taking over is to reconstruct branding of NSP. In late-1980s / early-1990s it was a promising party. Most WP candidates were not graduates; NSP has a big bulk of the talent pool, and SDP. These two parties – SDP attracts mostly English-educated and NSP mostly Chinese-educated with some English-educated, it’s mixed. SDP is more successful with Chiam. However, despite this, I had great expectations for NSP in 1991; it’s too bad it didn’t take off. I found out later that having a degree is no guarantee of success. It depends on individual characteristics. NSP could not connect in conversations; it’s a connection to the ground that’s important. Not many people can go around tables to sell papers especially the highly-educated who have not gone through hardships. They cannot mix around with lower stratas of society. It’s changing now. Chiam, on the other hand, has built his charisma from the ground right from scratch. It shows why NSP was relatively less successful than SDP over the same period when they had the same crop of people [KJ note: 1991 General Election when SDP won three seats to NSP’s zero.] NSP did progress in 01 with one NCMP Steve Chia. He did above-average in parliament but was burdened by the nude photo incident.

KJ: Do you think the photo incident impacted on Steve Chia’s 2006 GE result?

GMS: For Steve Chia in Chua Chu Kang, his vote actually increased after general vote swing of 5% [KJ note: Chia polled 34.7% in Chua Chu Kang SMC in 2001 and 39.6% in 2006. The swing against PAP was nearly 10% across the whole country.] He has not suffered much due to the nude photo incident. He was given a chance to perform in Parliament and he performed reasonably well. He maintained national vote swing of 5%.

NSP had to deal with the restructuring. We set up Malay Bureau. After five years in opposition politics, I decided this was important. I wanted to start up one in WP. PAP says “no racial politics” but they play the race-card all the time. They want to portray themselves as the only political party who can take care of all the races. They guard this jealously. They will attack people as Chinese or Malay chauvinist. They refuse to acknowledge that other parties can be guardians of other races. This is something I have to address if I want the party [NSP] to be a serious contender for the future.

KJ: Some people might say you are playing a race-card because the Malay Bureau obviously puts a special focus on Malays...

GMS: To me I’m not playing a race card. I’m a Mandarin anchor, but my party must take care of Malays and Indians. [KJ note: an interesting question is whether, according to PAP ideology, a person could be labelled a “chauvinist” of a race which is not her/his own.] We are multiracial. Goh Chok Tong did a review, they lost seats; it was due to less Malay support. Malays depend upon PAP for jobs and stability in the civil service. A lot of opposition parties do not want to set up race-based bureaus so to avoid being accused of playing the race-card. I’m multi-racial outlook challenging bases of PAP. PAP has three bases of power: races; meritocracy (protecting races from discrimination); and economy / jobs. These are the basic sources of power. GCT did a review in 91. He found Catholics’ vote moved away from PAP due to the Marxist Conspiracy issue [1987]. Now they have tried to pacify the Catholic community, George Yeo is the Catholic icon. One reason they lost [votes] is the Malay vote. Jufrie of SDP raised Malay issues in 91 in Eunos and was labelled a “Malay chauvinist” [KJ note: WP team scored 47.6% in Eunos GRC in 1991]. Malays in Hougang voted for WP, there was a spill-over from Jufrie’s influence. After this analysis they set up Merdaki and infiltrated all the Malay organizations to pacify the Malays. Since then there was a swing of Malays to PAP, but 06 there was a slight swing back to opposition. Chinese votes have always been fifty-fifty depending on the candidates. Malays are more impacted by group leadership. The imams have a centralized message discourse on Friday prayers. They cannot give their own sermons. The only concern is small cell groups which are unregulated. The PAP tries to buy out the Malay talented professionals and discourages them from getting involved in opposition politics. If you want to stand for opposition they will talk to you and pressure your family. That is the administrative and technical means to prevent Malay leaders joining opposition parties. I have to correct this.

KJ: So please tell us more about your Malay Bureau plans.

GMS: I will invite people in the community. My Malay network has established community connections. The number of Malay activists we have is still growing, ten to twenty.

KJ: Have any of them committed to stand for the election?

GMS: Some have committed to stand for election. I have a political science graduate working for MNC who will stand, and one lady active in social community work. They will compile issues pertaining to the community and they will attract professionals from Malay community to join.

KJ: What do you think of the comment by our friend PL that you have recruited just “Malay trash” to your Malay Bureau?

GMS: [PL] is totally wrong and mistaken about “Malay trash”.

KJ: Have you decided upon which seats the party will contest?

GMS: We will contest in Tampines, Jalan Besar, Jurong, and three SMCs Yio Chu Kang, McPherson, and Yishun Central. [KJ note: actual GRCs contested at the 7 May 2011 election were Chua Chu Kang, Jurong, Marine Parade, and Tampines and actual SMCs contested were Mountbatten, Pioneer, Radin Mas, and Whampoa. The interview took place 7 months before polling date.] I will contest in Tampines [KJ note: this did happen]. I hope there will be no three-corner fights; this is something we have to resolve. For an opposition to take power you need 40 seats and 8 minority candidates. These are the obstacles to becoming a ruling party.  We are trying to recruit people for an Indian Bureau; to recruit a critical mass where it will snowball.

KJ: What do you think will happen to Singapore politics in next 10-15 years and how many seats will the opposition win at next election?

GMS: We must face real problems; we must win half the seats. This is my plan for 15 years’ time. There is a study of impact of demographic changes. The prediction is those born after 1965 have less tendency to give PAP votes due to PAP’s reputation capital of nation-building. They will vote according to policies and candidates but not historical factors. By 2017 these will be the bulk of the voters. LKY once said he is confident PAP will still be the ruling party after two elections but after that he can’t say.

After 15 years there will be a coalition government, hung parliament [KJ note: the Australian Federal election of 21 August 2010 had created a hung parliament so this was upper in people’s minds at the date of the interview two months later]. They will have a coalition with other opposition parties. Logically an all-opposition coalition will not happen. We do not have ruling experience, you need PAP as a coalition party first, that is the transitional arrangement. In terms of stability in the transition it is recommended PAP be part of a coalition. For my view NSP is working towards a coalition government for next 15 years, it will reach there, whether it is coalition with PAP or opposition is left to be seen. Eighteen or 20 MPs is possible [in 15 years’ time]. This is to do with the post-LKY era. We are in transition period of LKY era. Philippines and Indonesia show that post-war you need a strong leader for reconstruction. After that people demand more participation. If you resist that there is tension. What I think is the change has to happen here, as in Taiwan and Japan as well as Korea to a certain extent. There must be a transitional time from strong leader to democracy. We are a late-comer [in this process] so to speak. The PAP strategy is the politics of retreat. LKY said if we lose two elections we are screwed. He knew the system he set up; it is designed for total totalitarianism. We are in a very delicate period. I wrote a piece “Dawn of the LKY Era”. It’s just like what the Chinese are doing, they are moving to politics of retreat. It’s not sustainable without a strong leader.

KJ: Was Goh Chok Tong with his “more consultative style of government” an effective transitional-period leader?

GMS: I would prefer LHL to GCT, with GST we had COE, asset enhancement, Medicare, health-care system - all were started by his administration plus ERP; he used ultra-capitalist thinking for all these policies, poisons sold as sweets. For all these policies once they are introduced they can only be moderated but not reversed.

KJ: OK, I want to ask you more about Low Thia Khiang because you worked closely with him. What are the secrets of his success?

GMS: Mr Low, the secrets of his success? First he took the opportunity of winning [1991] due to atmosphere created by the opposition as a whole. He was an unexpected candidate to win due to impact of spill-over of Malay groups; also his dialect group. He did well in setting up an alternative grassroots network of his own; he is seen as the leader of the Chinese-educated and the Chinese ground. In the Chinese paper he is seen as angry Teochew man, his public profile is accurate in certain ways; he is seen as a fearless debater. He did not make mistakes others did; he was second-in-line to JBJ, not painted as someone ungrateful who will kick out his mentor. He kept this up until the final break in 1999. He is careful at protecting his own reputation; his press releases are on him and the town council not national policies. Debates on national policy are done in Parliament not through the press. Recently there is a change in direction. He is not as aggressive as in the past. Maybe he is giving the profile to Sylvia Lim. He will sit in coffee-shop drinking beer with customers. Secondly, he manages his public profile as debater in Parliament and defender of his town council. In the new era ethnic group matters less and less and English penetrates the whole generation. [Low’s success] cannot be replicated anymore. We must confirm our reputations as political thinkers with national interests and interests of the races in mind. The perspective has totally changed from [Low’s] era to my era. I hope WP can evolve to this model. You cannot expect to win election just by selling papers and knocking the doors.

KJ:  What do you think of internet political activism by the youth?

GMS: Internet has already been in effect but the impact has not been that much. It is competition with the main media that matters. For the young it will have an impact and this will increase over the years. Facebook and blogs are a good archive and will grow in importance. Since I started blogging I have had 495 posts, in election period people will seek out the key players. The new media will work towards informed choice. We can’t forever depend on people voting for opposition because of an emotional charge caused by charismatic speeches.  I hope that most Singaporeans will make an informed choice based on policy views. Our economic policies are very centrist, with more socialist ideas to some extent, for example health care. The present system is totally inadequate. Since we have so much foreign labour we will put in mandatory health insurance scheme. For the foreigners they and employers will share premiums. For locals the government will pay part of the insurance. We have 40% foreigners working here so it can cross-subsidize local population. Coverage can be wider like the Taiwanese system. Health Minister there said Singapore system looks good but what is the role of the government? That is a very good question.

KJ: What is the NSP policy on minimum wage going in to the next election?

GMS: For minimum wage we agree to a minimum living wage but it should also be applied to foreign workers. It should be universal – for foreigners and locals. It is not only about minimum wage but also working hours. Foreign workers are exploited. This combination should be stated clearly in the labour laws – no discrimination should be tolerated. This should be made clear, equal opportunities for all. Our slogan of party is “society for all”. We have to make sure anti-discrimination laws enacted as part of the labour laws.

KJ: Your perspective on unemployment benefits?

GMS: I think unemployment benefits should last for only 6 months. I will put it at 70% of last pay. They are always concerned about the abuse. We are agreeable about unemployment benefits but we need more discussion on details.

We have to shift away from transitional model. Before we just needed companies to invest and education system created good workers for MNCs and GLCs. The over-reliance on this model is that our own people can become jobless due to structural change. They import labour from overseas. They maintain high-growth but with structural problems.  Is GDP growth really good for the citizens? Traditionally Singapore has benefitted from a foreign talent policy. Many Malaysian Chinese are foreign talents here. They are discriminated against in their own country. They have a similar cultural mindset but with people from India and China it is a totally different story. There is a need for integration due to this. We have to cap the foreign population. This economic model is not sustainable. The economy depends upon foreigners.  

KJ: Why and how is the current system not sustainable in your opinion?

GMS: This model is not sustainable without LKY in the long-term. The GRC system is not sustainable. If they lose two or three GRCs they will change it to proportional representation. Hopefully they will listen to my views and change to proportional representation.

KJ: Do you think most foreigners will become PAP voters?

GMS: It is a factor that new Singaporean citizens will become PAP voters but many foreigners are using the system as a stepping-stone. We are losing a lot of our talents to overseas; the number is growing but they refuse to publish that.

KJ: What do the opposition parties need to do to go from 25% to 50.1% and what type of people make up that next 25% that the opposition must win over?

GMS: First and foremost the women’s vote. Women are actually more risk-averse. They will choose a known devil over an unknown devil for stability and family’s sake. I always tell my people I split votes into three or four sections: Malay and Indian; women and men. Within each is Chinese- and English-speaking [voters]. We have to give confidence to the women voters that we are not trouble-makers but we are part of the government [i.e. government broadly defined to include the responsible opposition]. Every government without checks and balances is not stable. We are not trouble-makers for the Government.

KJ: So have you any ideas as to how to reach out to the women voters?

GMS: The more direct way is to get women candidates [KJ note: Nicole Seah’s arrival for NSP was a major highlight of the 2011 GE]. This is the role of the women. We are capturing the imagination of the Malays. The shrinking number in the population is the Chinese-speaking [voters] but it is a critical minority. English-speaking [voters] are more liberal and willing to read your views and make an informed choice. We have to cultivate a mindset of making an informed choice not based on fear or emotions. I sell the idea that your voting must be an informed choice but not based on emotion. So far we have one woman candidate but she is half-hearted; Nor Lella is the Malay woman [KJ note: Nor Lella later contested in the 2011 GE in Chua Chu Kang GRC where the NSP scored 38.8%].

KJ: Lastly, can you comment about Workers’ Party Treasurer Eric Tan’s remark to me about SDP’s supposed “Mandelaism”?

GSM: I don’t think the Mandelaism of the SDP is going to be effective. Yes, PAP is authoritarian but they are not a bad government. It is not a struggle against colonialism. [Mr] Low wanted to formally announce a separation from SDP and a rejection of civil disobedience. But I told him we may run foul of the law in the future in regards selling our paper. Furthermore, why alienate the 1% or 2% of SDP supporters in the electorates we hold or contest?

*** End of interview, time: two hours ***